KD DQ ...right decision?

[Weasel]

What do BOAYERS think about the Stewards decision to disqualify Maximum Security of the Kentucky Derby?

I have seen the slo-mo replay and it's clear that the horse 'changed lanes' ..drifting out about three 'lanes'... around the turn for home, and could have caused a nasty fall ...

but I cant help thinking that if that had been Ellerslie or Invercargill the race would not have been taken off him and the jockey would've copped a 3 or 4 week holiday

..or if OP mebbe another warning LOL).

Edited May 7, 2019 by Weasel

[SLB2.0]

Poor decision and it's life changing for multiple people.

What's the ruling with DQ? It officially ran 17th right? I'm guessing the 16th runner was inconvenienced? 

[curious]

Because the rule is different there.

Along the lines that if any horse in a race, swerves or is ridden to either side so as to interfere with or intimidate or impede any other horse or jockey, or to cause same, it is a foul any offending horses may be disqualified.

To me, the disqualification was a certainty.

[Newmarket]

34 minutes ago, curious said:

Because the rule is different there.

Along the lines that if any horse in a race, swerves or is ridden to either side so as to interfere with or intimidate or impede any other horse or jockey, or to cause same, it is a foul any offending horses may be disqualified.

To me, the disqualification was a certainty.

Just imagine if we had those rules in nz, half the winners would be disq

[curious]

I wish we did. No arguments about whether the interfered with horse/s would have won or not. You just can't do it, even in the first furlong. Much safer and cleaner.

[SLB2.0]

Imagine the impact on the TAB. Offshore bookies pay first past the post, but the TAB would have many disgruntled punters after around 10 horses were DQ'd.

Can any runner be DQ's? If Maximum Security finished 10th? Would it have been DQ'd from that position?

[curious]

Yes, any horse. If he finished 10th he would still be subject to DQ. Not sure if they'd bother if no stake money was involved....

[Newmarket]

1 hour ago, curious said:

I wish we did. No arguments about whether the interfered with horse/s would have won or not. You just can't do it, even in the first furlong. Much safer and cleaner.

Christ, it takes them ages to disq a horse now? Meetings would have to have an hour between races so out pathetic stipes could sort

[Freda]

3 hours ago, curious said:

I wish we did. No arguments about whether the interfered with horse/s would have won or not. You just can't do it, even in the first furlong. Much safer and cleaner.

And quicker.

[curious]

Just to be clear, the rule says the horse "may" be disqualified. There is a severity test for that and stewards still must determine that the interference affected the result of the race. In this sort of case it might be that a horse that probably would have finished fourth or better ended up 8th as a result of the foul. They do not have to show that the interfered with horse/s would have beaten the horse causing the interference though like here.

It still took stewards 20 minutes to make the decision.

Edited May 7, 2019 by curious

[All The Aces]

All I can say is the rule in the USA is archaic.

Thank goodness the rules in Australasia have been changed for the better. It must be shown that the affected horse would have beaten the offender.

Under the USA rules a winner can get disqualified even if it won by ten lengths under a hold if it had knocked down a runner at the 500m which then ran fifteen lengths last.  

[Fred]

Same rules in many countries

A/NZ ONES ENCOURAFE BAD RIDING